On 17 Sep 2006 15:20:44 -0700 said:
No, you will have to back them up sepeartely.
OTOh, that's the whole point of doing thsi ;-)
Data can be backed up and restored as files, although some apps may
require some lapdancing before they will "see" and use the data, and
these apps will often suffer from Pauli's Exclusion Principle ("no two
objects can occupy the same point in space/time"). For example, if an
email app has one data file called Outlook.pst and you overwrite this
with a restored copy, you lose the data that existed before restore.
In contrast, an XP installation has to be backed up as a partition
image, because it won't boot if it is backed up and restored purely as
a collection of files (even if the collection is complete).
Partition images may be too large to store off the system, and
generally can't be browsed to restore single files. That makes it
SUCK as a generic data backup method.
Keeping data off C: frees you from all the above BS. If the OS falls
over, you can restore the image of C: and not have your data
overwritten a la Pauli. If all the constant write traffic in C:
corrupts everything within that file system (or damaged files get
papered over by AutoChk and ChkDsk so you can't tell which files are
OK or not) then once again, your data off C: remains unaffected.
Data is corrupted during writes to the file system - so the fewer the
write events, the smaller is the risk of corruption. For best
results, I'd further reduce write traffic to the volume that holds
your data by disabling System Restore, as well as AutoChk automatic
"fixing" after bad exits. Disabling SR on the volume also reduces
background head travel to that volume, so helps speed things up.
------------ ----- --- -- - - - -
Drugs are usually safe. Inject? (Y/n)